The release of thousands of classified documents on WikiLeaks about the nine-year U.S. war in Afghanistan represents the contemporary equivalent of the Pentagon Papers in many ways.
- The documents have embarrassed both governments.
- An insider “whistleblower” put the documents in the website’s hands.
- The material contains a mix of information already made public and some that those who classify documents hoped would remain classified, such as covert operations aimed at high-ranking Taliban leaders and the number of civilian deaths.
But a significant difference between the two incidents 39 years separated: So far, the government has not tried to stop WikiLeaks.
In 1971, the U.S. government failed to convince a majority of the Supreme Court that release of secret information on U.S. policy in Southeast Asia posed any threat to the U.S. or its military operations. Embarrassing, yes, but not harmful, the majority ruled.
Some government officials believe the WikiLeaks documents do have serious military implications, including Gen. Jim Jones, national security adviser.
Website founder Julian Assange promises much more will come after the initial posting on the site late Sunday night.
The website’s home page features this quote about WikiLeaks from Time magazine: “(the site) could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act.”
Chances are whistleblower-fed websites will render the FOIA useless — mainly because government foot-dragging and bureaucratic gerrymandering make getting information under FOIA an exercise in frustration and delay.
Back in 1971, one of the reasons the government gave up pursuing legal action against the New York Times was that the Washington Post also got hold of the documents and began publishing it. In other words, shutting down one publication would not stop the information from becoming public — even in 1971.
In the Web age, it would be impossible to stop publication, even if the government or the courts intervened. That’s the beauty — or the evil depending on how you look at it — with life in the 21st century.
Which is it for you in the case of Wikileaks — beauty or evil?
Resources:
- http://wikileaks.org/
- http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66P5LH20100726
- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544/...
- http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100726/...
- http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1871.html
- http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/26/pentagon/...
- http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/26/...
Retired Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, a Pakistani and called by some media as a former "spy chief," says the White House leaked the documents to WikiLeaks so the U.S. could pull out of Afghanistan early and save face with American voters.
I know nothing other than what I've read that Gen. Gul said, but if the administration did leak the documents to initiate an early withdrawal, what's new about that? The government has sent up "trial balloons" about policy changes for decades. The officials who "leak" the information have remained anonymous, at least to the general public. WikiLeaks may not hold journalistic standards high, but it doesn't claim to have a journalism foundation.
Leaks will always happen in government and the media will publish. It's the way we do business. I don't see it as an evil, it just becomes more complicated.
Thanks for the post. As a longtime journalist, I know that every source has a motive. I find the view of a Pakistani a bit suspect in this case, since the documents released thus far have been very critical of Pakistan. That said, U.S. government leaks of information — even information that makes the government look bad — are fairly common, trial balloons, as you say. The key thing about posting these documents on the Web is that it renders government or anyone else pretty helpless in stopping it and certainly makes their presence permanent. That changes the dynamic for court challenges. Also, reader anticipation for the Pentagon Papers was great, but when the NYT started publishing "excerpts," to be honest, it was pretty boring stuff. I suspect these documents might turn out to be the same.
Post new comment